Thanks for reminding me of this!   I'm booked for 6/25 at The Ford in L.A.   Looking forward to the show!

Speaking of Gina... has Brian's "Carl & Gina" ditty ever surfaced in any form?   I can't remember if Brian wrote it honor for their 1987 wedding or it predated that, but I've always been curious about the song (as I'm curious about any Brian Wilson song).  Anyone know anything about it?  Lyrics?  Anything beyond the title?

Well, you're right, HeyJude.  The internet was a much different thing in the '90s than it is now.   There's way more information now... and there's social media... and info moves much faster.... and photos and videos and articles are easily shared.   So, something like Mike Love's gig at the trophy-hunting convention -- something that might have flown under the radar 25 years ago -- can now generate a protest and thousands of signatures on a petition in the space of 24-48 hours.  So if one of the BBs in 2022 were involved with a John-Roger-type group, would the reaction of BB fandom over that fact be quite different than it was in, say, 1995?   My guess is that it would indeed be different.  You'd have people armed with articles and videos explaining the controversies about the group, and fans denouncing the BB's involvement therein in no uncertain terms, etc.

Actually my point there wasn't about my personal feelings about the issue per se, but rather my recollection,  as someone who's been reading online BB info for 30 years, of the general nonchalance of BB fans when the issue came up.  This wasn't something like the Landy issue where many, many fans had very strong feelings that Landy was not a good person and was exploiting and/or mistreating Brian.  I don't remember ever seeing a single post suggesting that Carl was being a exploited by a cult or whatever.  So, again, the question was whether BB fans knew about the "John Roger" thing, and my recollection is that they did but no one seemed to be losing sleep over it.

Was Carl's involvement in MSIA common knowledge among fans during his lifetime? Appreciate this new piece of the puzzle, Patsy6.

I don't know what constitutes "common knowledge," but back in the early to mid-90s, I do remember a tiny bit of online chatter about Carl's involvement with the "John Roger" religious group (even that Carl was a sort of minister within the organization).  This chatter was on what constituted the online BB discussion of the era (e.g., Usenet, email lists, compuserve, whatever).  As I recall, the general gist of the chatter was that "John Roger" was a sketchy sort of character who was generating a fair amount of controversy, BUT Carl had the right to whatever religious views he wanted to have, and those view didn't have anything to do with the music or the band (i.e., this wasn't another "Maharishi tour" situation), so who cares?

Saw this on instagram.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CdNLRmcKudZ/

Lovely rendition...  I hope grandpa sees it...

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/stagecoach-2022-beach-boys-locash.html/

Yes, that's correct.  It's been reported by multiple sources, including Brian himself, that the two brothers watched the 1998 Super Bowl together.  That was approx. 10 days before Carl's death.

It's inaccurate to say they were estranged at the end.  The Landy years were bad, but they had largely reconciled by the mid-90s, and Brian had Carl as his best man at the Melinda wedding in 1995.  Obviously, the years of acrimony took some toll, and it's sad, tragic really, that they weren't as close as they had been up until the early '80s.   We can chalk that up to the price of fame and the difficult rock-star life, but let's face it, even non-famous siblings often grow apart due to geographical distance, their own family priorities, etc.  It is what it is.

Wondering what the 1993 year listed for those SMiLE tracks means exactly.

Assuming GV 30 Years Box Set mixes?

That's a real head-scratcher.  Why would they use those 1993 mixes?   To my ear, the 2011 Smile Sessions mix of "Wind Chimes" sounds much clearer and crisper.

So what was the deal with "lumbermill saw operator" Earl Finney at "3701 1/2 " 119th Street?   Typically a "1/2" address is associated with some sort of in-law unit, guesthouse, garage apartment with its own entrance, etc.    Did the Wilson house have something like that?

Out in the Wilson yard, Earl Finney's chopping lumber?

Could this have been the area which eventually became the Wilsons' music room maybe after "Uncle Earl" found his own pad? I know I could look up the history but hopefully someone knows. In 1950 at least, I'd imagine that space which became the music room could have been an in-law quarters type of thing but I don't know for sure. I think the music room came a few years after 1950.

And having in-law quarters or converting rooms or garages to such areas was more common than people realize today, during and after the war there was a serious housing shortage and crisis that lasted well after 1945-46. I'm sure you'll find a lot of that in the '50 census overall, depending on the area.

And Murry being a "painter"? That's not even close to being true, maybe a mistake by the census taker.

I like your hypothesis that Uncle Earl's "1/2" was the legendary music room.

I found this excerpt online from appears to be a published interview of Brian from the '80s....


"Q. What part of the house did you write in when you were still at the house? Did you write in your room?

[Brian:] Oh no. There was a music room that was like a garage my dad had converted. There was a hi-fl and a piano and an organ in
there, and so I'd go there every day after school. It's two steps down from the living room. Two little steps down, then you
walk down a little corridor, and there's a whole beautiful piano in there. So I wouk get down there and sit at the piano, and I would go, "Well, this is really going to be great."

Note that Brian say that the music room was "LIKE a garage" not that it was the garage.

So what was the deal with "lumbermill saw operator" Earl Finney at "3701 1/2 " 119th Street?   Typically a "1/2" address is associated with some sort of in-law unit, guesthouse, garage apartment with its own entrance, etc.    Did the Wilson house have something like that?

Out in the Wilson yard, Earl Finney's chopping lumber?

I joked upthread that if someone handed me a check for $11 million my response might be something other than initiating litigation against them.  And I do feel sorry for Brian, as it's even if it's "just business," the man is ~80 years old and it's no fun be a defendant in litigation at any age, especially when the subpoenas to depositions start rolling in. Believe me.

At the same, I don't judge Marilyn.  As I said, I don't live in their world.  And, of course, at a very basic level, a deal is a deal.  If she owns half of whatever Brian owns with respect to those 170 songs, then she gets half the net proceeds and would certainly be entitled to an accounting of how her distribution was calculated. The same would be true for any co-owner of any business.  And, also, it's important to keep in mind that we're talking about generational wealth here.  In this matter, Marilyn may not only be thinking of herself but also Carnie, Wendy and the half-dozen, I believe, grandchildren on that side.

A lot of people joke about celebrities signing the "pre-nup" agreement, but damn it does make sense with that much money in play.

At all socioeconomic levels, divorce is an expensive habit, but, yeah, a prenup seems like a no-brainer for any extremely wealthy successful person contemplating marriage.  I say "seems," because real life has a way of intruding and it's easier said than done to tell the supposed love of your life to sign on the dotted line and waive certain rights.  Definitely can be a relationship buzzkill for some people.  

Semi-funny story.  I have a friend who's extremely successful in her profession.  Was getting married (in California)--- her first, his second.  He was gainfully employed, but she was under the impression that she was going to be the bigger breadwinner in the marriage.   Anyway, she suggests a prenup. His response was, "Great idea!"   As part of the horsetrading going into the drafting and signing up for the prenup, she discovers that her fiance's net worth was essentially quadruple hers.  Oops.  

Anyhow, HeyJude is right that divorce settlements even in CA are negotiable, and Brian finds himself in the position that he's in due to a deal that he made back in 1980.  It didn't necessarily have to be this way. But, hey, it's par for the course, as not only Brian but also the rest of the BBs have a history of making bad business deal after bad business deal after bad business deal.  It's also a testament to the power and commerciality and sheer genius of his music that, despite all those bad deals, the music continues to make Brian and his extended dependents all fabulously wealthy.

There are some interesting legal and financial issues in this, and some which I'm a little confused about, so maybe someone with more knowledge on California law can chime in. First, California is a pretty f**ked up state to begin with when it comes to their state laws covering divorce settlements (among other f'ed up things in that state which I won't mention to avoid politics  ). They have a 50/50 split when it comes to dividing estates in divorce settlements, provided the parties don't agree on their own terms of how to divide the common property and assets.

So there are issues in this case about 30 year statutes versus 35 (the copyright revisions) regarding the specifics and assets of the divorce, the copyrights and future royalties which were part of a settlement in the 90's, the recent sale of the catalog, etc. I know intellectual and creative property isn't the same as hard financial asset like stock or real estate, but songs and song values are pretty close to how stock and property works too, where the values of songs ebb and flow through the years depending on use and popularity.

So hypothetically what if I were married in California in the 80's: I had acquired/earned $5,000 worth of stock in a startup company I started working for while I was married. So when I got divorced, my ex-wife under CA law is entitled to half of that stock which I received while we were married, so she got half the stock to do with what she pleases. But, what if that stock multiplied in value over the next 40 years to the point where it's worth millions, do I still need to give the ex-spouse half of all the dividends I earned from that stock's increase in value and even possible splits even though she already received her half of the stock itself in the divorce agreement? If I were to sell the stock decades later, and make an even million dollars on the sale, would my ex-spouse then be entitled to 500,000 from my profits on that sale even though the divorce was decades ago and she had already received her half of the shares in the divorce settlement?

I'm in California and have some experience with this topic.  The answer to your question is "no."  If the stock were split upon the divorce, she'd get her shares to do what she wanted with and you'd get yours and that would be that.

 In real life, though, things can get complicated.  Maybe you're still working at the company after the divorce and you're awarded some new stock.  You (and your lawyer) would say that this isn't "community property" because it was earned after the marriage, but she and her lawyer might argue that there's a community property component because it results in part at least from the seniority or good will or whatever you've built up during your entire career there, part of which happened during the marriage.

In the Wilson case, there wasn't anything resembling the "clean break" of your hypothetical.  Marilyn was awarded 50% of whatever interest Brian had in 170 songs written between 12/7/64 and the divorce.  In other words, Brian and Marilyn are and have been business partners with respect to those 170 songs for all these years.  So in other words this differs from your hypothetical where the stock shares are simply split and you go your separate ways.  It would be like you and your ex jointly owned the shares together, and, so, yes, she'd be in line for half of whatever appreciation, dividends, etc occurred ever after.

I skimmed through some of the legal documents.  Some interesting factoids.  Kind of amazed at the numbers involved, e.g., Brian selling rights Universal for $33 million last year, cutting a check to Marilyn for $11 mn which she considers insufficient.   If someone handed me a check for $11 million my reaction would likely be somewhat different, but I don't live in their rarefied world so I'm not making any judgments.

It's interesting to see the old divorce order from 1980, particularly as it mentions the proceeds of the sale of Laurel Way.  I didn't realize until now that they didn't sell that place when they decamped for Bellagio Road in 1967.  Anyone have any idea what they were doing with it for those last dozen or so years?  Renting it out?  Letting relatives live there? Storage?

Not commenting at all on the merits of Marilyn's claims, but it's sad if 80-year-old Brian gets dragged to depositions over business issues that he undoubtedly finds tedious and stressful.

This is looks pretty interesting.  I might try to make it to a show.
https://www.instagram.com/p/Cbum6DCO5KW/

Credit where credit is due... Stamos is a mensch.

probably subconscious irritation that Stamos is one of the luckiest* Beach Boys fans to ever live and we wish it were us in his shoes. I'm not saying we'd all love to rock a mullet and be uncle Jesse, but how cool that this guy has been able to rock out on stage with The Beach Boys and be in their circle?

Yes, I think there's definitely something to that theory... I mean, think back to the famous 1990 hotel tape where Stamos is right there in the middle of it as Brian-freakin-Wilson himself and company are jamming in a hotel room.   Heck, at various points, Brian is assigning him parts to sing and saying things like "Stamos, you need a little more bass."  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMQBeKTFBO0

As a fan, how jaw dropping would it have been to have been him in just that one moment?

This is great!  I freakin' LOVE these medleys.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, No. VII, the "Pet Sounds" one, is probably the best.

If the pandemic was over, I’d be at one of these shows in a heartbeat, but I’m not comfortable yet.

I don't want to derail the thread, and we all make our own individual choices about risk based on our overall health, vaccination status, age, etc.  But I just want to share a personal reflection. For two years, I pretty much did everything the public health authorities recommended on all fronts... and, nevertheless, about I month ago, I got covid-19.  For me it was a two-day cold/flu, followed by another 5 or 6 days of mild fatigue and continuing to test positive on home kits.  And that was it.
Your mileage may vary.  But over the past few weeks, I've come to reflect on the last two years. How many things did I *not* do?  How many concerts did I *not* see?  How much in-person socializing with friends and family did I *not* do? How many new places did I *not* visit?  How many new friends did I *not* make?  How much living did I not do in favor of staying home and watching Netflix?  Why?  To avoid what amounted to a two-day cold?  In hindsight, it wasn't worth it.  None of us are getting any younger. And I'll never get those two years back, but I'll tell you, I'm done.  From now on, I'm living my life.  Oh, I still comply with masking etc out of courtesy, but I'm done being afraid. If Al and/or Brian were coming to my area, I'd be on it like white on rice. If the BBs do something special for the 60th at the Hollywood Bowl, etc., I'm going.  

Interesting.  Sounds like he reworked this as "Baby Let Your Hair Grow Long."

How 'bout an executive summary for those of us without a facebook account?

I always had this page bookmarked, and I kept the faith and kept on rechecking - glad it's back!

Ditto ... and ditto!

Kudos to whomever got this done!

  Who's the Black backup singers? 

Sweetpea Atkinson, Sir Harry Bowens, Donald Ray Mitchell.

These guys were Don Was "regulars," appearing  on his own Was (Not Was) albums and the "Under the Red Sky" album he produced for Dylan.

One of the other aspects of the touring is the camaraderie.  Like Willie Nelson once said, "On the road again, making music with my friends again."
It's undoubtedly therapeutic for Brian just to be interacting with the rest of his band.  The man is 79 and isn't exactly a social butterfly at this point.  On one level, the other guys are his employees, but I have to think that most if not all of them are his friends to one degree or another.  Brian's friendship with Al, of course, pre-dates their professional life.  And Rob Bonfiglio is Brian's son-in-law.

As for the hypothesis that the touring is all about satisfying Brian's need for constant validation and approval, I'm not sure that I totally buy it.  Yes, we've all heard stories like the one about Brian almost scrapping Good Vibrations because some random visitor to the studio said he didn't like it.  But for every story like that, there's also a tale  like the one where Capitol execs all told him that Barbara Ann was a garbage but his response was basically, "I'm right, and you're wrong. Put it out anyway."

And as for the notion that the guy has been in a decades-long funk based on his inability to have another No. 1 hit, I guess it's possible.  But it's also worth remembering that there have also been periods when he really had no interest in even trying.  In his interview with Jamake Highwater from early 1968, Brian says, "I stopped trying to do such great things."  That was, what, maybe only 15-16 months after Good Vibrations and he pretty clearly sounds like a guy who's no longer trying to top himself or make No. 1 hits.  As a fan, it's one of the most heartbreaking things I've heard Brian say, but I do believe that he said it with total honesty. I don't think he was "sandbagging" Highwater.   I think he said what he meant and meant what he said.  It's like, "Sure, I can be Brian Wilson the musical genius scaring people with my musical genius, but who needs the aggravation?"